Why does marriage seem to be universal?

Seems like every culture of every race and continent had a concept of marriage. Why is that? Did most of the rich do it but the poor didn't? Did everyone gave a pretty good chance of getting a wife? What about slaves and the really poor? Did rich men try to hog all the women? Does monogamy contribute to stable socities vs polygamous marriage socities? What happens to all the men that don't get married in polygamy socities?

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Does monogamy contribute to stable socities
    Of course

    >What happens to all the men that don't get married in polygamy socities?
    they do nothing and simply dont contribute to society. Proto-neets historically. OR a warlord organizes them and they go conquer land for pussy.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s pretty obvious that we have something biologically in us that is biased towards monogamy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Musta been nice to be a king like Henry II or John or Edward IV though. You would have just had like an all-access pass to the best upper class sliz in the kingdom, and practically a harem of your own mistresses, and it was so normalized that it was barely frowned upon.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        most pussy feels the same. youre falling for a meme only a dork would.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I agree that most pussy feels relatively the same. But not all women are as good in the sack, and having sex with tons of enthusiastic hotties is something any man would wish for. Like most others who had arranged/political marriages, kings often didn’t love their spouses, but they did often love a favourite mistress or have a small group of women they fancied the company of.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But not all women are as good in the sack,
            sounds like a you problem

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >sounds like a you problem
            Anon, have you ever even been with a woman? Your comments reek of someone who’s a hugless, kisless virgin who has no experience in the sack with any woman, let alone a half dozen or more.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Really. Every guy I've ever met including me gets whatever side pussy he can get. I don't think humans are naturally monogamous at all.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's because you're in a degenerated society.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >whatever side pussy he can get
        he must not be able to get a lot of pussy if he acts that way.
        not trying to brag but generally every woman I meet is attracted to me. The thrill wears off.
        I lift and take care of myself for me, not for bawds.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is that?
    Inheritance, property and wealth being secured for the future of the family.
    >Did most of the rich do it but the poor didn't?
    Depends on the society and the wealth of it.
    >Did everyone gave a pretty good chance of getting a wife?
    Depends on the society and the wealth of it.
    >What about slaves and the really poor?
    Zero chance for slaves and near zero for the really poor
    >Did rich men try to hog all the women?
    Depends on the society and the wealth of it.
    >Does monogamy contribute to stable socities vs polygamous marriage socities?
    Somewhat yes.
    >What happens to all the men that don't get married in polygamy socities?
    Those extra men go fight in wars.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Those extra men go fight in wars.
      Not when there's no wars.
      Secondly; two polygamous societies duking it out gain nothing. There is no excess of women to take since the brunt of the soldiers are these pussy-starved men; the polygamous chads didn't go out to fight; and they arbitrate the peace terms.
      This is why the Middle East is a dysgenic hellhole. Its just inbred polygamists outbreeding everyone else regardless of individual merit/fitness.
      Without a polygamist religion* like Islam, these sexless men would probably figure out they could just kill these polygamists in their society and then distribute the women. Thus monogamy.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But if the richer aka smarter men take up multiple wives leaving the working class guys working on farms and harbors and oil wells without pussy. Isint that eugenic?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >richer aka smarter
          Only certain societal circumstances facilitate the success of intelligent people over nepotistic people. Let's just say that for most polygamous societies, it's just nepotistic hoarding of wealth that equates to being rich. The Middle East has been a stagnant and shitty place for the last few hundred years for a reason.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is necessary not only for a healthy society, but a healthy individual. Look at the state of marriages in a country and you will see it's future.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh, great. The fricking Middle Easterners are going to be even more idiotic and belligerent, given their propensity for cousin marriage.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Division of labour, lactation, going to war while pregnant was kind of impractical as well

    Women are weaker physically but were more expensive as a slave as well, kind of pointless buying a female slave unless you're going to breed with her and/or she's going to help you with raising your offspring.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All societies are based around families, doesn't matter who or where you go.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The structure of the family matters a lot as it shapes the wealth distributions and intergenerational feuds.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What happens to all the men that don't get married in polygamy societies?
    Men die a lot faster than women in general from all causes, even without war. If you don't have rampant woman hoarding and harems, it stands to reason that a mostly monogamous society with enough polygamy to handle the remainder wouldn't be especially unstable.

    If you've got idiocy like female infanticide going on in addition to polygamy, then it's going to be hell on earth. And it's not even about sex, a family is basically a way to keep men working and behaving in a productive way.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also, if a man has no stake in the future of his society, then why should he care? If his society promises him nothing then in return, he will promise his society nothing.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Underrated post.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This 100x over. This is the biggest problem with the contemporary west.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think this is why welfare states have their shit together better and will be longer lasting and stronger. Well, so long as they aren’t Sweden-pilled. But look at Denmark, for example. They’ve learned their lesson with how fallible and flawed all the woke progressivism ‘diversity’ crap is, and now they’re only taking very limited migration. The benefits of being a Danish citizen are paralleled or surpassed by only a few nations. A man there can see the benefits of his hard work both for his family and his fellow citizens, and in return he has an extremely decent and admirable, sought-after place to live.

          And to top that all off, Denmark is full of easy hot blondes with above-average tittage. What’s not to love?

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Like many other species Humans are naturally monogamous (this doesn't mean people didn't cheat all the time). The way our sexual demographics, parental care strategies, and social structures work at the hunter-gatherer level (which was 99% of people for 99% of our species existence) encourages a more-or-less 1:1 mating pattern. People were biologically and culturally inclined to find a partner and stay with them till one of them died. this probably didn't originally have any kind of institution or ceremonial form, Grug and Grugette just hooked up long term and everyone else knows that "Grug is with Grugette now". This could well be considered much like a form of marriage. Now of course as time goes on and human cultural life becomes more involved and complex, people will start doing/giving things to show their devotion to their partner, others will try and copy the gift with their own partner, and eventually this spreads to the whole group/culture before becoming codified alongside their other traditions. So now if Grug and Grugette want to become a couple their elders tell them they have to give each other shiny rocks/pretty flowers and swear it to the gods in front of the whole tribe. This too could be considered marriage.
    Cont.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now agricultural civilization comes along. Suddenly you've got writing, and hierarchy. Now theres rulers who control territories who need to know who exactly is living in a place, what they're doing, and how. And with writing they can. So you start recording things like people in units like "households" and such, which means a man and woman are being recorded together as an economic unit. This too could be considered marriage. You've also now got the advanced forms of the concepts of property and ownership and debt and inheritance. Now when two people hook up there are considerations over how their offspring will inherit previous generations wealth. Or to which economic or tax unit the new couple belongs (the mans father's household? the womans mothers household? form their own household? etc). This too could be considered marriage.
      Now here's where polygamy starts. These early states are basically a funnel that increasingly puts all the power and ownership into an increasingly small group of elites. In fact a great deal of the new lower class might now be literal property themselves. So you've got a some very powerful men who have all the power and armed men and nothing to stop them. They take the women. So you suddenly start seeing at the start of the bronze age this huge explosion in polygamy. But only among men, and only the elite, because only they benefit from it. The dudes who have no access to wives don't benefit for obvious reasons, and the women don't benefit either, because as said before human reproductive practices don't support a woman having her offspring not receive attention because the offspring of competing wives are taking it. This is also economically ruinous because there is now a very unbalanced gender ratio which means that you can't keep your population stable, and women become financially ruinous to acquire due supply/demand. Eventually most societies put either restrictions on polygamy or ban it outright to avoid this

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and the women don't benefit either
        incorrect
        polygamy directly benefits women generally at the expense of men generally.
        only in an evolutionary sense of course. and only in an evolutionary sense in an environment where these aforesaid men exist (i.e. a drastically unusual environment)
        secondly, polygamy still wasnt common in the Bronze Age; or, rather, woman-hoarding was not common. As men had a higher death rate than women, men having multiple wives didn't mean there had to be men "left out"; you could call this "limited polygamy" or "general monogamy"

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wrong on both counts.
          For one the early Bronze Age Y-chromosome bottleneck is extremely well attested. A very few men were passing on their genes while all the rest didn't, with no such reduction in mitochondrial DNA. This only happens in the kind of lopsided reproduction dynamics of harem mating.
          Secondly Women suffer massively from Polygamy. If a man has 10 sons by ten different mothers he cannot designate all ten his heir (those who try will soon find their holdings diluted into uselessness). Only one of those ten will be the real inheritor and if your a woman theres a 90% chance it won't be yours. In fact in in the interests of the fortunate son to kill or eliminate the other 9. Definitely not good for the evolutionary survival of those 9 wives genetic lines. There is a reason women have agitated against polygamy just as much as men. Because Women don't benefit from it even when they're part of the ruling class whereas men can at least huff copium about "One day I'll be rich and then I'll be the one with the harem".

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hypothetically speaking what if women had a higher death rate than men? And what if there was a marriage system that benefited men at the expense of women? What is the outcome?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’s pretty obvious that we have something biologically in us that is biased towards monogamy

      Humans are not strictly monogamous, instead it seems we evolved to practice a mix of serial monogamy with opportunistic cheating by both sexes (females to obtain better genes and males to cuckold another male and save themselves the investment of caring for extra offspring). Which is obviously not to say that everyone must be a cheater 'n shit (after all, we are an intelligent species capable of resisting base impulses), just that the socio-biological motivations are there.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They rape. Daily reminder female choice is dysgenic.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    holdtheline

    marriage is the great stablizer

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    society is built on the males competing for wages and pussy. the benefactors of this competition are the ruling class and women only.
    Farmers are pieces of shit who created the agrarian revolution glorifying weaklings.
    agriculture promotes weaker men and the rise of women. The only activity farmers need to do is get up in the morning and planting stuff. Woah. And farmers are naturally centralized which gives women more power by giving them a bigger pool of beta cuk devotees.
    So there you have it: beyond hunter gatherer, the ruling class appears and it's full of merchants controlling the money market and women controlling the sex market.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *